Originality of Everything.

Posted Posted in uncategorized

Originality applies to all objects of the universe and to the universe as a whole.
It stipulated that each object of the universe, like each snowflake or each fingerprint, had to be an original. No duplicates were found. Further, each object was composed of elements that were original. There were no duplicate elements found. Likewise, the universe as a whole was an original entity.

Originality recognized the spacetime of general relativity as well as the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics. Originality did not attempt to rectify or link these two seemingly contradictory descriptors of reality but used the disparate attributes of each as a characteristic of originality.

Likewise the characteristic features of “light matter” and “dark matter” were not linked. They were noted as descriptors. Some parts of the universe reflected light whereas others did not.

Originality made no claim on the number of universes. If there were more than one, then Originality would expect that each would be as different from each other as any object would be within each universe.

The overall design of the universe did not seem to link its parts as in an equation, but rather as a general rule for its structure. All aspects were made as if originality were important and duplication had to be avoided.

A Macro View of the Universe.

Posted 1 CommentPosted in uncategorized

A macro view is what we can see and use. We may not be concerned with the granularity of space or the comings and goings of electrons. Let’s see what the universe is like for the human observer.

We notice that the only biosphere anywhere is right here and we are in it. All of the searching of space has failed to turn up any other biosphere. And no other address for any life forms. Every object in space by direct observation and by inference is a desert. This has been confirmed by the best and the most thorough searching for the past 50 years and by inference for the rest of the universe. So, let’s face it, we are alone and if this biosphere is made uninhabitable, then life here, and that means everywhere, will be extinct. And there are no second chances no matter how well-meaning nor sophisticated the repairs to indiscretions. Once gone, humanity is over permanently like all extinctions.

Speaking of extinctions, our DNA is loaded with more than 23,000 new genetic disorders that arose in curvilinear fashion like the well known disorders. And the forecast to extinction was 2085 with the confirmation at 2080. Will that be enough time to make repairs? Given no grand commercial rewards and the propaganda for millennia to the contrary, probably not. That means humanity likely will be extinct in about 70 years.

The biosphere will probably keep going after humans go extinct. And likely will do better without us. None of the other life forms will be cutting down rainforest or polluting the atmosphere. What is left of this, the only known¬†biosphere, will probably thrive. Pity we won’t be here to enjoy it.

Of course, human stupidities are likely to continue. The likelihood of searching for another star with habitable planets will likely continue in spite of the fact that to reach any of them would take hundreds of thousands of years after we become extinct. Are humans likely to cancel any of those projects? Don’t count on it. There seems no limit to human stupidity, particularly if commercialism is involved.

Bluffer Michael Shermer

Posted Posted in uncategorized

Michael Shermer was asked three times, Does God Exist. All three times, he would not answer the question. Politely insisting on an answer, his assistant threatened with blocking e-mails.

He may be the founder of the journal, Skeptic, and he may be an adjunct professor at Claremount and Chapman Universities and a columnist for Scientific American, but he acted no differently from the 374,000 evolutionist bluffers unwilling to debate the 2,500-year-old history of evolution. Instead of professing, he was mute on Does God Exist. How pitiful for a Skeptic journal founder, a columnist, and a person claiming to be an expert professor on what is real and what isn’t.